Rosangela:No, if He created beings irrespective of the fact of whether they would sin or not.

Quote:
Tom:No, this isn't right. God deliberately preferred a being who would sin over one who wouldn't.

Rosangela:Of course not - the opposite would have been true.

Lucifer existed. God *did* prefer to create a being who sinned over one who didn't. This is what actually happened. It's not a hypothetical.

God did not simply create a being irrespective of whether he would sin or not, but preferred a creature who would sin over one who wouldn't.


R:He would have decided not to create certain beings, for the reason that they, in the future, would disagree with His government. Would it be OK for Him to explain His decision to His creatures or would He have to keep it always secret in order not to seem arbitrary?

God, when He decided to create Lucifer, was not constrained in any way to create him. He could create anyone He thought of creating. God chose to create a being who would certainly sin, rather than creating a different being who He knew would not sin. Why did God prefer sin over no sin?

Quote:
Why is it any more artificial to not create Lucifer than to create him?

What I said has nothing to do with the creation of Lucifer being artificial or not. What I said was that if God created only beings who would obey Him, this would be an artificially sin-free universe, in the same way that you could theoretically create an artificially birth-defects-free society by sterilizing all women and thus compelling everybody to recur to fertilization in vitro with previously screened embryos.

So you're saying that God had to create a being that would sin in order for the universe not to be artificially sin free. That gets back to my previous argument:

"Therefore, the only way that God could be seen as a promoter of free will would be if He created beings that would sin. Thus from the moment that God decided to create beings with free will, it was inevitable that He would create beings that would sin. Thus there is inherent within the creation of beings with free will not only the possibility of sin, but the certainty of it. Thus evil is inherent in the creation of beings with free will. "

Of course I disagree, for I see things in a completely different light. The problem is not restricted to Lucifer – 1/3 of the billions of angels God created sinned, and in the same way that sin began with Lucifer, it could have began with any of them. Your position is in no way better than mine, for if God was so infinitely intelligent as you said, I don’t believe He hadn’t in any way anticipated such a high probability of sin occurrence – 1:3.
Anyway, under your view, the best option for God would have been not to create anybody - thus He would run no risk.

Tom:God did not simply create a being irrespective of whether he would sin or not, but preferred a creature who would sin over one who wouldn't.

Rosangela:Of course I disagree, for I see things in a completely different light.

But this is what happened. God was not constrained to create Lucifer. God surely thought of other beings He could have created instead of Lucifer in Lucifer's place, yet He preferred to create Lucifer. There's really nothing to disagree with here. This, under your perspective, is simply what happened.

If you are going to disagree with this, you have to say what happened that was different, from your perspective, than what I am saying happened from your perspective.

The problem is not restricted to Lucifer – 1/3 of the billions of angels God created sinned, and in the same way that sin began with Lucifer, it could have began with any of them.

Not from your perspective it couldn't have. From your perspective, God sees things like a T.V. re-run. There is no such thing as possibility, only certainty. Sin could not have begun with any of the other angels. It could only begin with Lucifer, because God was 100% certain that this is exactly what would happen.

Your position is in no way better than mine, for if God was so infinitely intelligent as you said, I don’t believe He hadn’t in any way anticipated such a high probability of sin occurrence – 1:3.

The probability of sin occurrence was much lower. There were millions of worlds. Only one sinned. Sin is a very rare thing.

Under the position I've been sharing, there is nothing God does not anticipate. You should know that, since I've shared this many times. I don't know why you're suggesting otherwise. God sees every possible future, including the one that happened.


Anyway, under your view, the best option for God would have been not to create anybody - thus He would run no risk.

The question I've been asking you, which you haven't answered I don't think, is why God, under your perspective, would prefer to create Lucifer, knowing he would sin, over a different covering cherub, whom God knew would not sin. Why would God prefer sin over no sin? This is a big problem with the viewpoint you are espousing.

If God set into motion a course of events that could only have one outcome, and that outcome was sin, then God becomes responsible for sin coming about. God is not at fault if there was no better alternative.

You would have to argue that the alternative of creating Lucifer was better than the alternative of creating someone other than Lucifer as covering cherub who would not sin. I'm still waiting for you to make that case.

The challenge you have set before me is to make the case as to why it was better for God to create beings with free will and run the risk of sin as opposed to not creating free will beings at all. This task is much easier than the task you have before you. I would say that the empirical evidence is that sin is an extremely rare event. God knew that sin was a possibility, but was willing to take the risk, because the only way to create beings who are capable of loving and being loved is to take the risk of rejection.

However, under the perspective you have been sharing, there is no risk. Only certainty.

TE: It was something He knew could happen, but was unlikely to.

MM: Unlikely? Wasn't there a 50% chance? Either they would sin or they wouldn't, right?

TE: God swore by Himself that the plan would succeed. God has faith in His Son.

MM: What, then, was the risk? If God knew Jesus would succeed on the cross, what does Sister White's risk concept refer to?

TE: How could that not be the case?

MM: God did not cause FMAs to sin. He did not force them to sin. True, He knew in advance which ones would sin, but He this did not "deter Him" (ibid) from creating them.

TE: There is a huge difference between God's assuming a risk that is inherent to the creation of beings with free will ... and setting into motion a course of events that could only have one outcome.

MM: God was not forced or required to create FMAs. He could have chosen not to create them. Not creating FMAs was the only way to guarantee sin would not arise. However, God chose to create FMAs in spite of knowing in advance sin would arise. Even if we accept the idea that God thought it "unlikely" sin would arise, the fact remains - God created the circumstances that made sin possible.

TE: So this leads back to the question, why would God prefer to create a being who would certainly sin over one who certainly wouldn't?

MM: Tom, how can you even suggest such a scenario? Do you believe God knows in advance who will sin and who will not?

The position occupied by the creature had no importance at all! If sin had not arisen with the covering cherub, it could have arisen with any other creature at some point in eternity.


I’m not following your reasoning. We are discussing the possibilities from our point of view, since we do not know the future. Forget Lucifer for a moment. Who said he was the only creature who could ever sin? Supposing Lucifer hadn’t sinned (or supposing God had abstained from creating him), only God knows how many other creatures could have sinned at some point of eternity (considering the existence of each creature individually). Not even God can create “unsinnable” creatures with free will. Once a creature has free will, that creature always has the possibility to sin. Perhaps the emergence of sin in the universe was inevitable. If sin didn't arise through a certain creature at this point, it would arise through another one some thousand years later, and so forth.


The proportion of sin among the angels was 1:3. How can you call this “very rare”?
About the other worlds, who said there are millions of inhabited worlds? Ellen White uses the expression “worlds upon worlds,” which does not give us any clue as to their number. But considering the total number of creatures who sinned (billions), sin cannot be “a very rare thing.”


The risk of rejection? What about the risk for the well-being of the creatures themselves? Suffering, death, misery, etc.?

Regarding "worlds," as she uses the term, I think it always means "inhabited worlds." That is, "worlds" could be translated, without loss of generality "inhabited worlds." I don't think she ever means anything other than this (i.e., a planet where intelligent beings live).

Here's a text from hers which speaks of "millions of worlds."



Note that these "millions of worlds above" could be marshaled to raise a song of honor and praise and glory to their Creator. Hence they were inhabited, correct?

Regarding the possibility of sin, one creature among quadrillions sinned. Among his own type, he was able to lead others into rebellion. But there were quadrillions of beings. You can't just look at the angels and conclude that sin is likely.

Regarding the possibility of another creature sinning, that's a different topic. It's very possible that had Lucifer not chosen to rebel, rebellion would never have happened. But regardless, it's a red herring insofar as my question to you is concerned.

The question is why God would prefer Lucifer, whom he knew would sin, over some other covering cherub, whom he knew would not sin.

Regarding the idea that sin was inevitable in the creation of creatures with free will, that's easy to refute. Perhaps we can talk about that later, but first let's deal with this one question: Why prefer a creature that would certainly sin over one that certainly wouldn't?

This is a question for you to answer. My answer would be that this perspective (future is like a T.V. rerun) is incorrect, because it is an idea of the nature of the future which is inaccurate. There is no such thing as "one future." (i.e., no T.V. rerun to watch)

TE: It was something He knew could happen, but was unlikely to.

MM: Unlikely? Wasn't there a 50% chance? Either they would sin or they wouldn't, right?

No.

Say what you said were true, that because there are two possibilities that means the chance is 50/50. That would mean if you bought a lottery ticked, you would have a 50/50 chance of winning. You can see that this is an incorrect conclusion, can't you?

TE: God swore by Himself that the plan would succeed. God has faith in His Son.

MM: What, then, was the risk?

The risk was that Christ would fail.

If God knew Jesus would succeed on the cross, what does Sister White's risk concept refer to?

He knew of the possibility that Christ would succeed, and assumed the risk that He wouldn't.

TE: How could that not be the case?

MM: God did not cause FMAs to sin. He did not force them to sin. True, He knew in advance which ones would sin, but He this did not "deter Him" (ibid) from creating them.

Please quote enough of whatever you're quoting so I know what you're talking about. Here's the context:



What you wrote doesn't address my point, as far as I can tell, which is that if God set into motion a course of action that could only have one outcome, then he is responsible for that outcome.

TE: There is a huge difference between God's assuming a risk that is inherent to the creation of beings with free will ... and setting into motion a course of events that could only have one outcome.

MM: God was not forced or required to create FMAs. He could have chosen not to create them. Not creating FMAs was the only way to guarantee sin would not arise.

This is a true statement from my perspective, but not from yours (maybe subconsciously you know the perspective I'm sharing is true ).

From your perspective (God sees the future like a T.V. rerun) it would super simple for him to guarantee sin would not arise. Simply create beings that He foresaw would not sin.

However, God chose to create FMAs in spite of knowing in advance sin would arise.

This is exactly the problem. Why did God choose to create a being He knew would rebel?

Even if we accept the idea that God thought it "unlikely" sin would arise, the fact remains - God created the circumstances that made sin possible.

Worse than that, if your perspective were true, is that God created circumstances that made sin inevitable.

TE: Note that these "millions of worlds above" could be marshaled to raise a song of honor and praise and glory to their Creator. Hence they were inhabited, correct?

MM: Inhabited? Not necessarily. Consider what Jesus said about stones: “I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.”